Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RICE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4100551 · 1 · UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1882-03-10 — 17th most senior of the 1104 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: PURDY AND VICKERS DITCH (1882-03-02). Immediately behind: SAMPSON FRASIER DITCH (1882-03-10).
Decreed rights (3)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11757.0 | 1882-03-10 | 1890-06-30 | 0.78 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 11808.0 | 1882-04-30 | 1890-06-30 | 3.795 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDAUG | 14, 15 |
| 14198.0 | 1888-11-14 | 1890-06-30 | 2.79 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63, 93 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA6923, CA6908, CA4573, CA2456, CA2051, CA0149, 93CW0127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6923 | 1 | 1890-06-30 | O |
CA6908 | 1 | 1890-06-30 | O |
CA4573 | 2 | 1890-06-30 | O |
CA2456 | 1 | 1890-06-30 | O |
CA2051 | 1 | 1890-06-30 | O |
CA0149 | 2 | 1890-06-30 | O |
93CW0127 | 2 | 1890-06-30 | O |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 474 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 251 AF — 53% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 863 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 194 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 655 | 9th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 154 | 3.2 |
| 2013 | 1,008 | 12th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 181 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 1,146 | 13th lowest of 15 · 242% of median | 204 | 4.3 |
| 2015 | 1,806 | 15th lowest of 15 · 381% of median | 177 | 7.5 |
| 2016 | 1,199 | 14th lowest of 15 · 253% of median | 171 | 5.5 |
| 2017 | 749 | 10th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 184 | 3.8 |
| 2018 | 383 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 137 | 4.3 |
| 2019 | 387 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 146 | 2.3 |
| 2020 | 443 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 148 | 2.2 |
| 2021 | 401 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 150 | 2.1 |
| 2022 | 322 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 116 | 2.1 |
| 2023 | 371 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 106 | 2.9 |
| 2024 | 474 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 127 | 4.8 |
| 2025 | 251 | 1st lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 123 | 1.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-47 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.010).
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15955 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 99% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.